Americans continue to grow further removed from the farm – but their interest in animal welfare remains steady. What many people don’t realize is, oftentimes, a vegan activist organization is working behind the scenes to promote their views of “animal welfare.” These organizations are not in the business of animal welfare, though. They are in the business of putting an end to animal agriculture. Don’t just take my word for it – here it is straight from their own mouths:

• "My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture.”
• “We are trying to destroy animal agriculture.”
• “Animal rights is different from animal welfare. It’s not about better cages; it’s about empty cages.’’

The last quote has it right – animal rights is different than animal welfare. Animal welfare experts are conducting research and reviewing data to improve care. Animal rights groups are taking incremental approaches, under the guise of animal welfare, that raise the cost of farming and the prices of animal protein in the store. Many of these incremental approaches lack scientific backing that it makes a meaningful difference in animal care. I’ve heard the American Kennel Club describe the animal welfare versus animal rights debate this way: Animal welfare is issue-based; Animal rights is agenda-based.

Animal care practices that are commonly targeted by animal rights groups include spacing requirements for broiler chickens, raising laying hens in caged housing systems and using gestation stalls for pregnant sows.

Cage-free versus conventional eggs

The topic of cage-free eggs was thrown into the spotlight earlier this year as egg prices rose from supply shortages. During the height of the shortage, I priced an 18-pack of extra-large eggs in California at over $15 at the local commissary. These 18-packs of extra-large eggs were the only options available that day, as the other shelves had been cleared out. Similarly, when I ventured to ALDI to check out their egg supply, the egg section was marked with black and yellow “caution” tape and a sign that noted there was a purchasing limit of only two cartons per person. While all states were likely impacted by the egg shortage, I wondered if states that had passed legislation to only sell cage-free eggs were disproportionately impacted – by price and availability.

Several states, including California, had passed legislation that prohibited the sale of eggs that came from birds not raised in cage-free systems. Many of these bills were promoted by animal rights lobby organizations, claiming it was best for animal welfare. Following the egg shortages, several states considered bills to recall or delay implementation of the legislation. On the restaurant, retail and foodservice front, we saw similar patterns. Food brands that had previously made cage-free egg commitments, following pressure campaigns from animal rights groups, now appeared to be backing off the commitments. We’ve heard there were several reasons for this: Consumers aren’t willing to pay the additional cost for cage-free eggs, and animal welfare outcomes have not necessarily improved in the cage-free system.

Broiler chicken welfare

Restaurant, retail and foodservice brands have faced ongoing pressure to sign onto the Better Chicken Commitment (BCC), a coalition made up of animal rights members including Humane World for Animals (formerly the Humane Society of the United States), Mercy for Animals and The Humane League. Each of these organizations share an extreme goal of eliminating animal agriculture – not improving animal welfare.

Components of the BCC include increasing the amount of space in a chicken house per bird, adherence to Global Animal Partnership standards (an activist-led animal “welfare” certification), and switching to slower-growing breeds of chickens. Again, these standards are used to increase the cost for farmers and ranchers to stay in business and the prices of chicken in the grocery store. They don’t necessarily positively improve the well-being of chickens on the farm.

According to the National Chicken Council (NCC), contrary to what activists would have us believe, “All current measurable data – livability, disease, condemnation, digestive and leg health – reflect that the national broiler flock is as healthy as it has ever been. But the industry is committed to continuous improvement.” NCC has its own set of animal welfare standards that are updated regularly and certified by the Professional Animal Auditor Certification Organization (PAACO), a leading authority on animal welfare auditing.

Gestation stalls in sow housing

Similar to calls to shift away from caged housing systems for egg-laying hens, animal rights groups have also called for transitions away from using individual gestation stalls with pregnant sows. These groups claim that it’s better for the animal to be raised in “crate-free” group housing settings.

The primary purpose of gestation stalls is to allow farmers easier access to care for the sows and protect them during pregnancy. Pregnant sows can be very aggressive, so it is in the animal’s best interest to give it an area where it can go without worry of being injured (or, in some cases, killed) by another sow. Gestation stalls also allow sows free access to food without competition.

Interestingly, in studies conducted using free-choice stalls that house the sows in a group pen but allow access to individual stalls, sows typically prefer the individual stalls over the group setting for the reasons mentioned previously.

Dictating animal welfare versus animal cruelty

A common trend we’re seeing from animal rights groups is attempts to position themselves as authority figures of what is considered animal welfare versus animal cruelty. Recently, federal legislation has been introduced to create an FBI Animal Cruelty Taskforce. This bill is being supported by Animal Wellness Action, an animal rights organization led by disgraced Humane Society of the United States leader Wayne Pacelle. Similarly, these groups are attempting to build relationships with local law enforcement to serve as resources on perceived animal cruelty.

Other groups like Direct Action Everywhere are taking matters into their own hands, under the belief that they have the “right” to trespass onto farms and steal animals that they consider to be abused. Any animal raised on a farm, even in the most optimal conditions, will be considered “abused” to these groups who do not believe in raising animals for food in any capacity.

When it comes to animal welfare, the Animal Agriculture Alliance is a strong believer that practices and guidelines should be determined by animal welfare experts. The outcomes should be based in science – and not determined by emotion or animal rights groups with ulterior motives.

Emily Ellis is director, communications and content, for the Animal Agriculture Alliance.

www.provisoneronline.com   |   october 2025